Article

Rationale and design of a community-based double-blind randomized clinical trial of an HPV 16 and 18 vaccine in Guanacaste, Costa Rica

Proyecto Epidemiológico Guanacaste, Fundación INCIENSA, Torre La Sabana, 300 Oeste del ICE, Piso 7, Sabana Norte, San José, Costa Rica.
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.49). 09/2008; 26(37):4795-808. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We report the rationale, design, methods and details of participation of a community-based, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of an HPV 16 and 18 vaccine conducted in two provinces of Costa Rica to investigate the efficacy and population impact of the vaccine in the prevention of cervical cancer precursors. More than 24,000 women between 18 and 25 years of age were invited to participate and pre-screened for eligibility, with recruitment of 7466 women (30% of those pre-screened, 59% of those eligible) who were randomized to receive 3 doses of the HPV vaccine or hepatitis A vaccine as control. A complex protocol of data and specimen collection was applied, including an interview, pelvic exam for sexually active women, blood for serology and cell-mediated immunity, cervical secretions for local immunity and cells for HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis and gonorrhea testing. Eighty percent of the women received three doses, 12.4% two doses and 7.4% one dose. At visits, compliance with data and specimen collection was close to 100%. Baseline characteristics and age-specific prevalence of HPV and cervical neoplasia are reported. Overall prevalence of HPV was high (50%), with 8.3% of women having HPV 16 and 3.2% HPV 18. LSIL was detected in 12.7% of women at baseline and HSIL in 1.9%. Prevalence of Chlamydia was 14.2%. There was very good agreement in HPV detection between clinician-collected and self- collected specimens (89.4% agreement for all types, kappa 0.59). Follow up will continue with yearly or more frequent examinations for at least 4 years for each participant.

0 Followers
 · 
114 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vaccine efficacy (VE) against vulvar human papillomavirus (HPV) infection has not been reported and data regarding its epidemiology are sparse. Women (n = 5404) age 22-29 present at the 4-year study visit of the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial provided vulvar and cervical samples. A subset (n = 1044) was tested for HPV DNA (SPF10/LiPA(25) version 1). VE against 1-time detection of vulvar HPV16/18 among HPV vaccinated versus unvaccinated women was calculated and compared to the cervix. Prevalence of and risk factors for HPV were evaluated in the control arm (n = 536). Vulvar HPV16/18 VE (54.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9%-79.1%) was comparable to cervix (45.8%; 95% CI, 6.4%-69.4%). Vulvar and cervical HPV16 prevalence within the control arm was 3.0% and 4.7%, respectively. Independent risk factors for vulvar HPV were similar to cervix and included: age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.5 [95% CI, .3-.9] a parts per thousand yen28 vs 22-23]); marital status (aOR 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5-3.5] single vs married/living-as-married); and number of sexual partners (aOR 3.6 [95% CI, 1.9-7.0] a parts per thousand yen6 vs 1). In this intention-to-treat analysis, VE against vulvar and cervical HPV16/18 were comparable 4 years following vaccination. Risk factors for HPV were similar by anatomic site. NCT00128661.
    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 06/2014; 210(12). DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiu357 · 5.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper, we review the published evidence about the long-term efficacy of the available human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and their safety profile. Two prophylactic HPV vaccines - bivalent (bHPV) and quadrivalent (qHPV) - are now available, and vaccination programs are being widely implemented, primarily targeting adolescent girls. Efficacy has been widely demonstrated for both vaccines. Since the risk of HPV exposure potentially persists throughout a woman's sexual life, vaccine duration of protection is critical to overall effectiveness. Interpreting the results of long-term efficacy studies for the two HPV vaccines can be puzzling, due to the heterogeneity of studies, different methods used in the assessment of immunogenicity, histopathological and virological end points, and statistical power issues. Moreover, an immunologic correlate of protection has not yet been established, and it is unknown whether higher antibody levels will really result in a longer duration of protection. Disease prevention remains the most important measure of long-term duration of vaccine efficacy. To date, the longest follow-up of an HPV vaccine has been 9.4 years for the bHPV vaccine. Long-term follow-up for qHPV vaccine goes up to 8 years. The vaccine continues to be immunogenic and well tolerated up to 9 years following vaccination. All randomized controlled clinical trials of the bHPV and the qHPV vaccines provide evidence of an excellent safety profile. The most common complaint reported is pain in the injection site, which is self-limiting and spontaneously resolved. The incidence of systemic adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to a serious AE reported in clinical studies are similar between the two vaccines and their control groups. In particular, no increased risk of autoimmune disease has been shown among HPV-vaccinated subjects in long-term observation studies. As these are crucial topics in HPV vaccination, it is important to establish systems for continued monitoring of vaccine immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety over time.
    International Journal of Women's Health 01/2014; 6:999-1010. DOI:10.2147/IJWH.S50365
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two trials of clinically approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE I/II) and the Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA), reported a 22% difference in vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in HPV-naïve subcohorts; however, serological testing methods and the HPV DNA criteria used to define HPV-unexposed women differed between the studies. We applied previously described methods to simulate these HPV-naïve subcohorts within the Costa Rica HPV16/18 Vaccine Trial and assessed how these criteria affect the estimation of VE. We applied 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) thresholds for HPV16 and HPV18 seropositivity (8 and 7 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for PATRICIA; 54 and 65 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for FUTURE I/II (to approximate the competitive Luminex immunoassay)) and 2 criteria for HPV DNA positivity (12 oncogenic HPV types, plus HPV66 and 68/73 for PATRICIA; or plus HPV6 and 11 for FUTURE I/II). VE was computed in the 2 naïve subcohorts. Using the FUTURE I/II and PATRICIA criteria, VE estimates against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, regardless of HPV type, were 69.0% (95% confidence interval: 40.3%, 84.9%) and 80.8% (95% confidence interval: 52.6%, 93.5%), respectively (P = 0.1). Although the application of FUTURE I/II criteria to our cohort resulted in the inclusion of more sexually experienced women, methodological differences did not fully explain the VE differences.
    American Journal of Epidemiology 08/2014; 180(6). DOI:10.1093/aje/kwu168 · 4.98 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
25 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014